This doesn't seem purposeful. It seems like someone finding confirmation bias because a group more likely to identify with their beliefs has been partially left out (in this case).
Reading over the technical part, it seems like an honest mistake. Who's to say everyone doesn't end up affected at some point or another? I agree we always ought to minimize such errors, but they're arguably better than the human alternative (against which many accusations of various biases have been leveled).
I think we're more likely to find examples of this because the normal cases (where minority groups aren't affected) aren't litigated as widely.
Now that there is evidence that this sort of thing can happen, it should be a responsibility of the justice system to have regular audits in place to ensure that it stops happening.
Comments
This doesn't seem purposeful. It seems like someone finding confirmation bias because a group more likely to identify with their beliefs has been partially left out (in this case).
At least for the "anti-black" case mentioned, here's the case itself: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1604783.html
Reading over the technical part, it seems like an honest mistake. Who's to say everyone doesn't end up affected at some point or another? I agree we always ought to minimize such errors, but they're arguably better than the human alternative (against which many accusations of various biases have been leveled).
I think we're more likely to find examples of this because the normal cases (where minority groups aren't affected) aren't litigated as widely.
Now that there is evidence that this sort of thing can happen, it should be a responsibility of the justice system to have regular audits in place to ensure that it stops happening.